U.S. v. Strobel

Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant's contention that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing on all issues, even though Dist. Ct. had failed to explicitly impose conditions of defendant's supervised release during sentencing hearing, but included in written judgment all conditions of supervised release that had been recommended in presentence report. No impermissible inconsistency between Dist. Ct.'s oral pronouncement of terms of supervised release and its written judgment existed, where: (1) presentence report contained three mandatory, 12 standard and three special conditions of supervised release; (2) neither government nor defendant objected to any of proposed conditions of supervised release, and defense counsel declined Dist. Ct.'s offer to read proposed conditions of supervised release; (3) Dist. Ct. assured defendant that he could seek to adjust any condition during his supervision; and (4) there was no inconsistency between sentencing transcript and written judgment, where judgment referenced conditions that Dist. Ct. had adopted from presentence report at sentencing hearing. Moreover, although one condition in written judgment, i.e., requirement to pay fine or restitution, was not in presentence report, said fact did not require new sentencing hearing, since said condition was mandatory. (Dissent filed.)